2017 ORS 656.126¹
Coverage while temporarily in or out of state
  • judicial notice of other state’s laws
  • agreements between states relating to conflicts of jurisdiction
  • limitation on compensation for claims in this state and other jurisdictions

(1) If a worker employed in this state and subject to this chapter temporarily leaves the state incidental to that employment and receives an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, the worker, or beneficiaries of the worker if the injury results in death, is entitled to the benefits of this chapter as though the worker were injured within this state.

(2) Any worker from another state and the employer of the worker in that other state are exempted from the provisions of this chapter while that worker is temporarily within this state doing work for the employer:

(a) If that employer has furnished workers’ compensation insurance coverage under the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of a state other than Oregon so as to cover that worker’s employment while in this state;

(b) If the extraterritorial provisions of this chapter are recognized in that other state; and

(c) If employers and workers who are covered in this state are likewise exempted from the application of the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of the other state.

The benefits under the workers’ compensation insurance Act or similar laws of the other state, or other remedies under a like Act or laws, are the exclusive remedy against the employer for any injury, whether resulting in death or not, received by the worker while working for that employer in this state.

(3) A certificate from the duly authorized officer of the Department of Consumer and Business Services or similar department of another state certifying that the employer of the other state is insured therein and has provided extraterritorial coverage insuring workers while working within this state is prima facie evidence that the employer carries that workers’ compensation insurance.

(4) Whenever in any appeal or other litigation the construction of the laws of another jurisdiction is required, the courts shall take judicial notice thereof.

(5) The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall have authority to enter into agreements with the workers’ compensation agencies of other states relating to conflicts of jurisdiction where the contract of employment is in one state and the injuries are received in the other state, or where there is a dispute as to the boundaries or jurisdiction of the states and when such agreements have been executed and made public by the respective state agencies, the rights of workers hired in such other state and injured while temporarily in Oregon, or hired in Oregon and injured while temporarily in another state, or where the jurisdiction is otherwise uncertain, shall be determined pursuant to such agreements and confined to the jurisdiction provided in such agreements.

(6) When a worker has a claim under the workers’ compensation law of another state, territory, province or foreign nation for the same injury or occupational disease as the claim filed in Oregon, the total amount of compensation paid or awarded under such other workers’ compensation law shall be credited against the compensation due under Oregon workers’ compensation law. The worker shall be entitled to the full amount of compensation due under Oregon law. If Oregon compensation is more than the compensation under another law, or compensation paid the worker under another law is recovered from the worker, the insurer shall pay any unpaid compensation to the worker up to the amount required by the claim under Oregon law. [Amended by 1955 c.723 §1; 1957 c.474 §1; 1977 c.804 §4; 1989 c.684 §1; 1995 c.332 §10; 1997 c.234 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Oregon has jurisdic­tion where worker is employed in this state by employer contributing to fund, whether or not work temporarily will be performed within state. Kolar v. B & C Contractors, 36 Or App 65, 583 P2d 562 (1978)

Fact that Oregon worker temporarily performing work outside state filed unsuccessful initial claim in state where injury occurred did not affect Oregon jurisdic­tion over claim when later filed in Oregon. Kolar v. B & C Contractors, 36 Or App 65, 583 P2d 562 (1978)

Employ­ment in Oregon does not confer jurisdic­tion where work performance is permanently con­ducted outside state. Langston v. K-Mart, 56 Or App 709, 642 P2d 1205 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Where worker was performing work for Washington-based employer in Oregon on temporary basis, fact that all pre-injury job performance was in Oregon did not confer Oregon jurisdic­tion. Phelan v. H.S.C. Logging, Inc., 84 Or App 632, 735 P2d 22 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Principal loca­tion of employee’s work duties, rather than loca­tion of employer’s opera­tional headquarters, determines whether worker is Oregon employee. Power Master, Inc. v. Na­tional Council on Comp. Ins., 109 Or App 296, 820 P2d 459 (1991)

Where loca­tion of job duty performance is inconclusive, worker status is determined by loca­tion of employer’s opera­tional headquarters. Power Master, Inc. v. Na­tional Council on Comp. Ins., 109 Or App 296, 820 P2d 459 (1991)

In Determining Extent That Claimant’S Work Outside State Is Temporary, Relevant Factors Are

1) intent of employer; 2) understanding of employee; 3) loca­tion of employer and facilities; 4) circumstances surrounding claimant’s work assign­ment; 5) laws and regula­tions binding employer; and 6) residence of employee. Northwest Greentree, Inc. v. Cervantes-Ochoa, 113 Or App 186, 830 P2d 627 (1992)

Where board determined that claimant was covered under Washington law as Washington employee doing temporary work in Oregon, claimant was exempt worker notwithstanding contrary finding by Washington board that claimant was not covered under that state’s laws. Haney v. Union Forest Products, 129 Or App 13, 877 P2d 651 (1994)

Where worker is working at nontemporary workplace, interstate agree­ment does not replace permanent employ­ment rela­tion test for determining Oregon coverage. Carothers v. Robert Westlund Construc­tion, 149 Or App 457, 944 P2d 966 (1997)

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 432-445 (1976); 16 WLR 519 (1979); 22 WLR 559 (1986)

Chapter 656

Notes of Decisions

Party having af­firm­a­tive of any issue must prove it by preponderance of evidence unless legislature fixes some different quantum of proof. Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979)

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion generally apply to pending cases and to orders still ap­pealable on June 7, 1995, effective date. Volk v. America West Air­lines, 135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion do not extend or shorten procedural time limita­tions with regard to ac­tions taken prior to June 7, 1995, effective date. Motel 6 v. McMasters, 135 Or App 583, 899 P2d 1212 (1995)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Benefit unavailability for inmates engaged in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

Law Review Cita­tions

24 WLR 321, 341 (1988); 32 WLR 217 (1996)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 656—Workers’ Compensation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors656.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 656, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano656.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.